0
0
According to the indictment, each of the moving defendants was associated with the El Rukns, a purportedly infamous Chicago-based street gang.
The El Rukn gang was a highly disciplined and organized association that existed solely for the purpose of perpetrating crime. It existed, in various forms, for 23 years, from 1966 to 1989.
During this time, the El Rukns committed uncountable acts of racketeering including 20 murders, 12 attempted murders, 11 conspiracies to murder, one act of kidnapping, wide scale drug trafficking and numerous acts of obstruction of justice.
These activities were carried out through a formal chain of command that was headed by Jeff Fort, an unindicted co-conspirator.
Five of the moving defendants held positions at the second and third levels of command, referred to as “generals” and “officers” respectively. As such, these defendants “operated and promoted the activities of the enterprise, and exercised authority over subordinate members.”
The primary “business interest” of the El Rukns was the distribution of narcotics wherein 37 defendants, including each of the moving defendants, conspired to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, multi-kilogram quantities of heroin and cocaine, hundreds of pounds of marijuana, thousands of amphetamine pills, thousands of Talwin and Triplenamin pills, multi-liter quantities of codeine syrup and large quantities of Phencyclidine or PCP.
To protect these drug operations from the ambitions of “competitors,” the El Rukns found it necessary to murder a slew of rival drug dealers and rival gang members.
To protect members from prosecution for some of these murders and other crimes, the El Rukns killed, intimidated, and kidnapped witnesses. Each of the moving defendants is charged with significant participation in these criminal activities.
Thus, in this case, we must decide whether an “ordinary person” would have fair notice that the conduct charged against each defendant constitutes a “pattern of racketeering.”
The answer is exceedingly clear. The moving defendants are each charged with having committed numerous racketeering acts in connection with the El Rukn’s criminal activities. To begin, the indictment alleges that each defendant was a member of the broad and extensive narcotics conspiracy that was at the core of El Rukn affairs.
They are also each charged with membership in at least one conspiracy to murder in order to further, protect or cover up this narcotics activity.
Further, these crimes were committed during lengthy associations with the El Rukns. Defendant Robinson’s association with the El Rukns was for the shortest duration among the defendants but, as alleged, it lasted a full least three and half years, from January 1985 to July of 1988.
During this time, although not an El Rukn member, his alleged involvement was extensive as he is charged with a total of eight racketeering acts in connection with El Rukn affairs. Each of the other five defendants, as alleged, held a formal leadership position as a general or officer and was an El Rukn member for more than a decade. These defendants are charged with anywhere from five to nineteen racketeering acts.
It is clear that such conduct is at the heart of the “pattern” requirement and well within the “continuity plus relationship” formula. As to the relatedness requirement, the alleged racketeering acts were certainly not committed in isolation. They are related by a strong “distinguishing characteristic” in that they all are heavily intertwined with El Rukn affairs. This fact, and the fact that the El Rukn gang was a wholly criminal organization, undoubtedly satisfies the relatedness requirement.
It is equally clear that the continuity requirement is satisfied. According to the indictment, the El Rukn gang has, in various forms, been in existence for over two decades and, as we have stated, each of the defendants was associated with the organization for a number of years.
United States v. Andrews, 749 F. Supp. 1520 (N.D. Ill. 1990). US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois – 749 F. Supp. 1520. October 17, 1990
Average Rating